Jump to content

Padraic Conway

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Padraic Conway

  • Rank
    LSP Junkie
  • Birthday 05/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Looking out across Northumberland
  1. Padraic Conway

    Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

    All possible John, but the photographic evidence (plus the considerable number of painted parts still extant) leads us strongly towards 3 or more distinct undersurface colours in use during 1944/45. Jerry has done a lot of work in this field, as have others (JaPo, Merrick, Ullman, Wadman, Brown for example), and the current consensus is that: these differing colours did exist (blue, green and brown/cream variants) paint and binder mixes/use of cobalt/differing chemistry can account for some variations within 76 but not easily account for the larger variations the differing colours are pretty consistent across differing surviving aircraft parts Personally, I suspect that Matt's idea of linking colours/hues to differing aircraft types and their places of manufacturer may have a great deal to offer us. JaPo have done exhaustive work in this field, pinning down camo patterns to type and manufacturer. Your comments about Me262s using 'factory spec' 76 appear to supported by colour pictures. The He162 however is another matter, and lets not forget the He219 at the NASM with green squiggles over black/grey. If that airframe had been simply pictured in black and white at wars end, then we all would have simply seen 76 over 66 and thought no more about it. How many more He219s carried that scheme? Using Matt's premise, perhaps all of the production batches with black/grey undersides? All fascinating stuff (at least to me) Padraic
  2. Padraic Conway

    Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

    And here is the problem: you are starting your exploration here with a conclusion - 'I believe what needs to be proven is...' and also that 'every observed hue on parts .. results from application issues of the existing references' . My background is in academia, teaching undergraduate students how to conduct research. Gathering evidence with an open mind is an essential component of this process (as it is here), and we should all be open to new ideas and possibilities (although I agree with you that these need to be adequately supported by the evidence), especially when these don't support our beliefs. Selectively employing some evidence, yet ignoring evidence that doesn't fit a pre-existing idea, simply leads to the conclusion that you started with, but no more. This approach results here in you only accepting any evidence that you feel supports your (already decided) conclusions. For example your FW190D-9 parts appear to confirm your hypothesis that 76 sometimes had poor binders, so you are happy with that idea, but you then dismiss any evidence that counters your conclusion (such as Matts power egg pic and caption, Jerry's examples and pictures and the Fw 190pics). Radu recently demonstrated the need for us to suspend our pre-existing ideas about late war Luftwaffe colours when he provided a very compelling argument that what we tend to see as 81/82 on late war airframes is really 70/71 even though this idea runs counter to the convention of late war colours. I'm quite prepared to say here that I changed my perspective on the issue as a direct result of his ideas. We all do well if we keep our minds receptive to new ideas. Hopefully you haven't signed off this post - it would be good to continue the discussion. Padraic
  3. Padraic Conway

    Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

    I have to say Vincent that, intentionally or not, this post of yours reads rather conceitedly, especially your concluding sentence where your mentioning 'really knowledgeable researchers' smacks somewhat of elitism. I thought I had put forward a balanced argument on p1 when I highlighted the blue/white, green and concrete colours used on the undersides of the FW190s in the pictures provided there. I provided a reasoned justification for my opinion why these were distinct hues. Other posters (some very well known in this field) have since contributed and developed mine and their ideas with supporting evidence. I also acknowledged your position as potentially valid, but not, in my view, comprehensive enough to form a complete justification for the widespread existence of 3 distinct underside colours (in a variety of hues). My position has not changed, but at no point did I make a value judgement about the credibility of your suggestions. I thought all participants here were involved in a thoughtful and measured discussion? I may not be in print on this subject, but I do know what I'm talking about. Your words above are poorly chosen. Padraic
  4. Padraic Conway

    Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

    Mindful of thread hijacking here, but... With the greatest of respect to Vincent I feel the issue around lower surface colours I highlighted in this case is more complex than just a bad mix of pigment and binder. I would offer a number of points to support this proposition Look again at the 2 FW190s above. The underwing paint isn't the greenish 'RLM 84' but a beige/concrete colour that is quite different from either 76 or the so-called 84 Being applied right next to 'conventional RLM76' in the same print frame means that we can discount any photographic shift or print degeneration as the cause The old 'Monogram Painting Guide' offered a number of 76 variants that are generally still accepted within Luftwaffe camo debates as valid when compared to real aircraft parts (as I acknowledge that Vincent has done), so the situation is more complicated than poor binder in some 76 paint So we are off to the races with multiple shades of undersurface paint on late war airframes - some bluish, some greenish and some beigeish. (New word there ) RLM 76 itself varies significantly from a light blue to chalky almost white Some airframes are painted in three or more different underside colours (the RAAF Bf109G for one example), with shades on the same airframe including white/blue, concrete and the 'sky' lookalike widely referred to as 'RLM84' (although I use that term reluctantly as it has no formal meaning backed by RLM documents, but rather is a label now in widespread use). The RAAF airframe is accepted as a rebuilt airframe (that doesn't necessarily negate my point about 3 different colours), but for an everyday airframe FW190D-9 Blue 12 is another example with varied undersurface colours Finally, I fully accept Vincent's (and Michael Ullman's) proposition that some examples of late war greenish undersurface paint could be as a result of solvent and pigment changes within RLM76. I feel however that this theory doesn't easily account for all the observed colour variations from period evidence and the points I have presented above. Phew! Padraic
  5. Padraic Conway

    Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

    Slightly OT from 81/82, but still within the colour debate, those first 2 FW190 shots beautifully illustrate the distinction between late war 76 (almost chalky white by this time) on the cowl underside and oil cooler ring, compared with the un-numbered beige colour used underneath the wings. I have read a description of this shade as 'concrete' - which seems pretty accurate to me! But a world away from 76 in its usual form...
  6. That last comment was firmly tongue in cheek for anyone inclined to think I was being serious...
  7. I meant the Eduard comparison as more of a simple summary of the situation or a metaphor, rather than as a precise literal comparison. As in all-inclusive vs good quality starting point. I have several ZM kits, most with additional ZM details, so I understand how these are presented and can be upgraded if the purchaser wishes. Mind you, your ideas for sprue layouts make sense; no reason why engine details/interior structures couldn't be designed into the sprue layout so that the relevant sprues are included or omitted according to the boxing. But the tooling issue stands, so I also think that a Basic series model will also not be that much cheaper than an SWS issue. Tooling costs aside, both Basic and SWS versions will have similar raw material, R&D, CAD, marketing, packaging, transportation, storage, importation, taxation (at least here in the UK), distribution and retailer markup cost additions to the initial tooling. Probably end up costing the same... Or just being the same with different instructions marking more parts as 'not for use' in the basic version...
  8. Padraic Conway

    Hasegawa Ju87G Kanonenvogel - a bit of progress!

    I'm watching this with great interest - especially anticipating your choice of markings. Harking back to Gaz's recent poll, here's an example of trying to avoid the most obvious choice - Rudel's airframe!! So, for me, anything but < - + - ! Winter markings sound very promising. Lots of potential for weathering and general scruffiness. Go Tim!
  9. Wow! Excellent build there Andy. Your cockpit is superb!
  10. Padraic Conway

    New Tool Tamiya Bf 109 G-6 for February release!

    And me. And I don't even want another Bf109G in 1/32! Just wanted to see the reaction to the post...
  11. A la Eduard Weekend in 1/48? Makes a lot of sense to me too.
  12. Very clever Alex! Thank you!
  13. Padraic Conway

    Bf110G4 NJG4 1944/45 FINISHED!!!!! YIPPEE.

    Well done Max! I expect your wine will feel richly deserved. Lovely build!
  14. Padraic Conway

    Found something while on a holiday trip...

    Good find! Hard to get a hold of now at an anything-like-reasonable price. Well done!
  15. Just found this Alex: excellent work! How did you manage the texture on the steps for the crew ladder? Very impressive. Padraic